Posted by SpotSell on 12/30/2012 10:53:00 PM (view original):I'm no member of SABR, but these guys are baseball researchers, writers of scholarly material, not just a bunch of stat heads. Oh sure, there are some of those there, no doubt. A select committee of SABR, scholars who have produced a portfolio of comprehensive in depth baseball research. They would be much better than a bunch of scribblers for the local newspaper. Watching the home team play makes someone an expert? I would make the case that watching the home team for 10+ years gives one a perspective far too narrow to judge greatness compared to the whole. Shoot, I would posit that a healthy percentage of people on this site own as much knowledge of the game as your typical newspaper scribbler.

You need a balance.

If you just let the stat nerds vote, as Mike said, you end up with a set "formula" for HOFers and then you don't need voting. You totally discount any non-statistical attributes or contributions.

If you only let those watching the games vote, perhaps you have a guy (like a Mattingly) get in because he was solid on the field, and extremely popular among fans.

You need a mix of both - or people who are smart enough to watch the games and analyze the stats. But if I had to choose one, I'd go with those who watched the games, because they can always go back and analyze the stats to go with their observations. You can't have a stat nerd go back in time to see a player play, how the fans reacted to him, how he helped his team on and off the field, etc.

Your decision is based on a caricature of the people you're talking about.

The beat writers watch 1/15th of the games played in any given season. So it's not as if they've seen all the players play a whole lot.

The typical SABR guy watches a ton of baseball as well, and therefore also has memories to refer to - probably a similar amount to the writer.

I wouldn't want a set formula either, but I think the stat guys actually have a better perspective than the writers.

But I would go for a mix as well - a select committee of writers, announcers, former players, researchers and executives.

Your response seems to indicate that writers are incapable of looking at stats.

It's my belief, based on discussions on this board, that a lot of stat nerds don't even watch baseball. They look at WAR or FIP and say "good/bad game/season."

Give me a guy who watches 180 games a year over the guy the analyzes data all day..

At least actuaries get paid well for what they do. Most of the stat guys I like to read do this as a hobby or a side gig because their love of the sport. If there are "just numbers" guys, I think they're the minority.

Watching baseball (or any sport) and analyzing stats after the game has completed should complement each other. It's irresponsible to make definitive judgements about performance by relying solely, or even primarily, on just one of those two aspects.

I've watched plenty of games in which the numbers in the final box score did not accurately reflect what actually happened in the game. Likewise, the stat sheet sometimes points out subtleties that may not have been prominently noticeable during a game.

The same can be said when projecting out from just a single game to an entire season, or even an entire career.

Posted by ramonshaw on 1/1/2013 12:23:00 AM (view original):If you think no one is worthy I could see not voting but don't vote just because is lame..

Not voting is not the same as casting a blank ballot. This writer not voting has the same effect on the final tallies as you or me. Casting a blank ballot would be actively voting for nobody.

What? If you see someone worthly, let's say Derek Jeter, but don't vote for him or anyone else because IYO "its not cool" then the vote should be taken away. If there is 10 Delmon Young clones and you don't vote, then its okay.

One of the ESPN writers was lamenting the fact he could only vote for 10 guys, and he remarked it was stupid that if a ballot is cast with more than 10 votes, it's scrapped and doesn't count against the % (same as a ballot not submitted)...but some idiot can submit a blank ballot to make a statement, and every player on the list takes a % hit.

In one sense, I agree with this. If you submit a blank ballot to stick it to the PED users or "generation", you're also hurting the little guys who may not even stick around on the ballot if they don't hit the minimum. Those guys probably aren't getting in, ever, but they're still getting unfairly screwed by these "statement" ballots.

I would find it VERY hard to believe that a voter could look at a ballot in any given year and not find at least ONE name he thinks should be in the HOF. If you don't want to vote for Bonds, Clemens, etc., that's fine, but don't use your ballot to make a blanket statement against everyone.